Beware the “Denial of Innovation” Attack at RSA

We are on the final countdown to RSA and I find myself at an interesting place mentally and emotionally about the conference.  I enjoy the interaction with customers, analysts and the other vendors.  I enjoy the opportunity to connect with old acquaintances that I sometimes only see this one time a year.  I learn some things and come away energized – particularly about our product and the obvious gaps that we fill in the industry.

I also come away frustrated and a little sad by what I have named the “denial of innovation” attack that is becoming increasingly prevalent at the show.  RSA is full of noise and FUD, and the larger companies in the middle of the floor rule both the microphone and the exhibit floor, and to some extent, throttle the smaller voices of innovation in the room.   They do so by using their industry standing and deep pockets to overwhelm the mental bandwidth of the attendees – hence the use of the “denial of innovation” descriptor.

For these companies, their huge revenue streams are their power and their problem.  It is their power because they can afford to buy the premium sponsor slots and deliver “keynotes” that are in fact well crafted marketing messages.   Their booths are an adventure in excess – people, show floor technology and the best give-aways.   At least one will have a display device that costs as much or more than what Triumfant will spend on our entire booth.

It is their problem because the message they deliver is predicated on protecting the revenue stream, and the act of protecting revenue is often an inhibitor to innovation.   This is not unique to the security industry – it is a well worn path as companies grow large and make decisions based more on the effect to stock price over advancing technology.  The problem may be in fact more pronounced in IT security because so many of the largest companies are so closely wed to older technologies such as signature based tools, and they simply cannot afford to put the revenue streams from these products at risk by admitting it is time for a new approach.  You can also read numerous discussions about the Advanced Persistent Threat where the DoD and other agencies and organizations have been pleading with the large A/V vendors for years to step up to the evolving threats and the waning ability of antivirus tools to address such threats.  In Mike Cloppert’s blog he notes that the “defense industrial base has been pleading with the AV industry for innovation to address more sophisticated threats and detection resiliency for at least 5 years, likely longer”.

Those big vendors that will have a new approach to tout at this year’s show will likely be doing so because of technology obtained through acquisition and not through internally driven innovation.  While the vendor may earnestly believe their new offering is a step forward, do not discount the fact that the financial markets and shareholders demand that they show a positive effect to the bottom line from that acquisition.

Lest you think this is a jealous rant of a small vendor, Bill Brenner of CSO magazine today reported on a movement called Security B_Sides has started that offers a forum for the innovative companies that are squeezed out of forums like RSA by the big guys (full disclosure: Triumfant submitted a proposal for a presentation on how our analytics eliminate the false positive problems of anomaly detection, and was rejected).  Such forums are a positive step toward getting exposure to new and innovative technologies that address very real problems.   If smaller, innovative companies had a voice at places like RSA, there would be no need for something like Security B_Sides.

I also understand that there is a buying dynamic at work in the IT security market.  The volume of vendors and offerings on the RSA floor is a confusing mass of noise to buyers who have strained budgets and their own professional standing on the line.  The old saying “no one gets fired for picking IBM”  gets translated in IT security to the choice to go with the larger omnibus product set of a large and well known security vendor rather than having to pick smaller vendors to cover requirements and then be faced with the very difficult task of integrating those products.   And for some companies the big vendors may be the right choice and all that they need.  But for other organizations who are under the constant barrage of advanced threats, the easier path may not be the answer.

The big vendors know this, and if you see something innovative and raise it to someone in a big vendor booth, they will very likely tell you they “have that” and you don’t need another product.  I am not accusing these vendors of being deceptive – they honestly believe they have that capability. Remember the famous line by George Kostanza from Seinfeld: “if you believe it, it is not a lie”.  I cannot tell you how many times I provide an overview of the Triumfant product to someone from such a vendor and get that response.  But if that person will take the time to drill down to our actual approach and functionality, they understand the innovative nature of the product and will sheepishly admit that they really do not have comparable capabilities.

RSA has become the embodiment of a self-perpetuating cycle that seems to become more pronounced every year, and this is what makes me frustrated and sad.  I wrote a somewhat fanciful piece on the animals of the RSA zoo, describing the various company profiles on the floor.  Savvy veterans of the show know that the innovation is on the edges of the exhibit floor in the smaller, less descript booths.   But unfortunately, the bright lights and “don’t worry, be happy” messaging at the large booths in the middle provide many a warm sense of assurance even if it may be at least partially false.

So if you are on the way to RSA, do yourself a favor and don’t give yourself over to the denial of innovation attack.  Go and enjoy the bright lights and frothy promises at the booths in the middle of the floor, grab that invite to the swanky party, and get your stash of give-aways to bring back to the office or home to the kids.  But then break away and head for the edges of the exhibit floor.  You may find something that really solves a problem you have in a way that cannot be found in the glitz and glamor.   Because the heart of RSA is not at the center of the floor – it beats strongly in the innovative vendors that reside at those edges.

One Response to “Beware the “Denial of Innovation” Attack at RSA”

  1. [...] where I described similar zealotry on the exhibit floor under the name denial of innovation attack (Beware the “Denial of Innovation” Attack at RSA).  My encounter with PM reminds me that this is not an RSA specific phenomenon and is in fact a [...]

Leave a Reply